Alleged Fraud
13. Mr I told us the charity was charging his father an extra fifty pounds a week on top of his rent, which it claimed was for rent arrears. He said he found evidence a direct debit had been set up to cover these payments, which he believes was done fraudulently.
14. He told us that the signature on the direct debit was not his father’s and was submitted in person at a bank ten miles away from his father’s home. Mr I told us his father could not have travelled this far due to ill health. Further, it amounted to a sum of over £1800 in addition to his regular rent payments, which were paid separately.
15. Mr I said the Commission simply told him to report this to the police. He did so, but due to the time elapsed, the CCTV footage from the bank had been deleted, and so the police told him it had no case to pursue.
16. Following this, Mr I returned to the Commission and asked it to investigate.
17. The Commission responded to Mr I on 20 October 2023 saying this alleged fraud would constitute a crime, and that as the Commission is not a prosecuting authority, it cannot investigate allegations of fraud.
18. It advised again that Mr I should contact the police and/or Action Fraud as the correct places to raise such an issue. It reiterated this position on 29 February 2024 and 24 July 2024.
19. Before we decide if we should conduct a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any indications that something has gone wrong.
20. During our investigation, we reviewed information from gov.uk, specifically a document titled ‘Summary strategy for dealing with fraud, financial crime and financial abuse of the charity sector’.
21. Part of this document, under the header ‘What is the commission’s strategy for dealing with fraud and financial crime and abuse in charities?’ makes it clear that “It is for the police, not the commission, to investigate and prosecute fraud or other criminal matters arising in charities”
22. The Commission’s role is to register and regulate charities in England and Wales, to ensure that the public can support charities with confidence.
23. The Commission ’s role is as a registrar and regulator, and its role is outlined by the government in its policy paper ‘Regulatory and Risk Framework’. Its role here is defined thus: “We are responsible for identifying if organisations are charitable and meet the requirements to be added to the register of charities.”
24. This paper outlines, among other things, the limitations to the Commission ’s role, described as follows:
25. “Although our objectives and functions are wide-ranging, there are limitations to our role as a regulator:
• we are not a prosecuting authority, although we may ask others to prosecute offences on our behalf. The investigation of alleged criminal offences is the responsibility of law enforcement agencies • except in limited circumstances where there are indicators of underlying risks (see also section 4.2 below), it is not within our remit to examine complaints about the following:
• poor service from a charity • employment issues, for example, unfair dismissal • internal disputes • contractual disputes”
26. As such, we would have to find that the Commission provided Mr I with the correct information in response to this point. In particular, the Commission rightly directed Mr I to take his concerns about fraud to an appropriate law enforcement agency, the Police. We empathise with Mr I’s distress in pursuing his concerns further. This is because the police informed him it could not investigate by the time the complaint had been raised due to lack of evidence. For these reasons, we do not propose to take further action on this aspect of Mr I’s complaint.
Financial welfare checks
27. Mr I told us the charity made no checks to ensure the additional rent arrears payments were affordable for his father, and that it took advantage of his vulnerability. His only income was his state pension, and Mr I says it would not have been possible for him to pay this additional fee without getting further into debt.
28. He complains the Commission has refused to investigate this.
29. The Commission responded to Mr I’s complaint on 17 March 2023. It advised that as the complaint was regarding the level of service the charity provided and its governance, it would not be proportionate for the Commission to take regulatory action. It explained that it does not engage in matters involving a charity’s services. It advised Mr I to raise his concerns directly with the charity (if he not done so already).
30. The Commission provided a further response on 6 July 2023. It noted his concerns that the charity had taken a considerable amount of money from his father without performing welfare checks to make sure that he could afford the additional payments.
31. The Commission reiterated its stance to Mr I’s original request for them to investigate the charity, sent before the complaint was raised. Specifically, it advised that that the issue is between Mr I and the charity to resolve. It explained that it cannot comment on the service offered to his father and directed him to approach Citizens Advice.
32. The Commission explained that it is a regulator, and its role is not to become involved in every complaint received about a charity, and that it cannot intervene to seek a resolution for a complainant. The Commission advised it can only become involved if it is fair and proportionate to do so.
33. It advised Mr I it had considered the original decision, and that the case officer had regarded all the information Mr I provided and decided that it was not appropriate to intervene.
34. A further response was provided by the Commission on 20 October 2023. Regarding the way in which Mr I alleges the charity treated his father, the Commission explained that concerns of this type can only be addressed by the charity since they are about the service provision from the charity, and that it has not received sufficient evidence for to treat these issues as a regulatory concern. It agreed to consider any such evidence in future.
35. The Commission sent similar responses on 18 February, 14 March, 8 July and 24 July 2024, with no new information provided beyond a reiteration of the same reasons as provided before.
36. On 16 August 2024 the Commission gave new a response to Mr I’s request for a decision review. It explained:
37. “The Decision Review process applies to decisions such as the use of statutory powers (for example freezing bank accounts, appointing managers, and disqualifying trustees). It does not apply to concerns about the Charity Commission’s (‘the Commission’) failure to act.”
38. As part of our investigation, we asked the Commission about its response to Mr I (dated 20 October 2023), in which it explained that Mr I had not provided sufficient evidence of his concerns in order to treat this as a regulatory concern.
39. We wanted to know the Commission’s rationale for this, including whether (for example) it considers his evidence circumstantial or undocumented, or whether there was another reason for rejecting it.
40. The Commission explained it is a regulator and not a complaint-handling service, and as such in many cases it is not able to resolve an individual’s concern to their complete satisfaction. It advised that members of the public, whistleblowers or other organisations alert the Commission to concerns about a charity, its focus is on determining whether the information gives rise to regulatory concerns about how the charity is operating.
41. When such concerns are raised about a charity, the Commission explained it assesses the information on a case-by-case basis to decide if there is a regulatory issue and what steps to take. It uses information from various sources to help inform the assessment. To confirm this it directed us to the UK government guidance ‘Raising a concern with the Chairty Commission (CC47).
42. The Commission said it is important that it focuses its resources on high-risk cases which could impact the charity, its beneficiaries and members of the public, and says it cannot act on hearsay or an opinion, and that any engagement by the Commission must be proportionate.
43. It went on to say its case records show Mr I raised several concerns over a lengthy period about the charity’s actions before and after his father died. Mr I’s concerns were considered by several different officers within the Commission including senior officials and the safeguarding lead before it disengaged with him.
44. We can see that the Commission’s Customer Relations Team responded to Mr I on 20 October 2023 after he had been through the stage one and two complaint process, but that the Commission took the position that based on the information provided there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations made. It did ask him for evidence but says the information he provided did not change its assessment of the matter.
45. As noted above in the section regarding alleged fraud, gov.uk states what the Commission’s current responsibilities are.
46. The list of responsibilities makes it clear that it cannot be directly involved in the administration of a charity or tell trustees what decisions to makes. It has no power to overturn a charity’s decisions if they are lawful, and there is no suggestion that this particularly point was unlawful.
47. The website makes it clear that it is not within the Commission’s remit to examine individual complaints about poor service from a charity.
48. The Commission has been clear in explaining its function to Mr I and has signposted him to multiple other organisations that deal with these matters. From the evidence and policy reviewed, the Commission has explained its role correctly and given appropriate advice to Mr I.
49. While investigating this point of complaint, we reviewed the Commission’s Regulatory Risk Framework (RRF). This document sets out how the Commission operates as a risk-led regulator, and in particular:
• how it identifies and assess risks • how it responds to risks • how it reviews and adapts its approach
50. As part of this, the document outlines the Commission’s ‘statutory objectives, functions and duties’. This section of the document explains that “We are required by the Charities Act 2011 to ensure our regulatory engagement with charities is proportionate, accountable, consistent, transparent and targeted.”
51. The Commission has explained that it does not consider taking action regarding this point to be proportionate, and as we can see the RRF grants it the authority to make this decision.
52. As there is nothing here to indication maladministration or service failure on the part of the Commission, we will end consideration of this matter here.
Staff behaviour
53. Mr I told us that a member of staff aggressively interfered while he was attempting to give a report to the police following his father’s death. On 17 March 2023, he told the Commission:
54. “I actually found my dad at his home and within an hour whilst talking to the Police and still in shock, an idiot approached claiming to be a trustee of the property and demanding to know what was going on. After several attempts to interfere, he was dismissed by one of the officers. The charity claims this person does not exist. I believe they do and they are covering for him.’”
55. In a further communication to the Commission, in a concern form completed on 4 August 2023 he provided more detail:
56. “‘Finally, it was myself who found my dad at his home and as I was dealing with the police within an hour of this scenario and idiot turned up drunk banging on the police car window demanding to know what was going on. He did this several times before being moved on by the Police. During his drunken tirade, he claimed to be a trustee of the housing charity. I complained to them about this and despite numerous attempts at getting answers, including giving them the name I believe to be of the individual involved, they have done nothing.’”
57. Mr I says that the Commission told him this was not something it could look in to. We considered our own ‘Ombudsman Principles, 2009’ here, which under the section ‘getting it right - weighing up relevant evidence appropriately’ says that:
58. “in their decision making, public bodies should have regard to the relevant legislation. Decision making should take account of all relevant considerations, ignore irrelevant ones and balance the evidence appropriately.
59. Public bodies necessarily assess risks as part of taking decisions. They should, of course, spend public money with care and propriety. At the same time, when assessing risk, public bodies should ensure that they operate fairly and reasonably.”
60. We recognise how upsetting this situation would have been for Mr I, having suffered the shock and distress of finding his father shortly beforehand. We could see little detail about this in the Commission’s complaint responses to Mr I, so we asked it to provide further information now. The Commission explained that if an individual was being aggressive and/or interfering during the incident, then it would have expected the police to have acted.
61. As Mr I does not appear to have provided the Commission with any evidence to substantiate the claim that the individual was a trustee of the charity, we cannot say that the Commission has failed to take any action.
62. Mr I referred to safeguarding in his subsequent correspondence to the Commission, but the Commission says no details of safeguarding concerns have been provided. We have also seen no evidence of this in any of the documentation provided.
63. The Commission advised it sought advice from its safeguarding lead before disengaging with Mr I on 16 August 2024. It explained the role of the safeguarding lead is to provide advice to help support staff identify and manage areas of safeguarding concerns or risk in charities. In this case, the Commission says it set out all the concerns to the safeguarding lead and asked them to review the proposed letter. Part of their consideration is to ensure that the cases have been progressed in line with our risk and regulatory framework. The safeguarding lead did not raise any concerns.
64. It might have been better if the Commission had been more explicit in its complaint responses. However, in terms of Mr I’s concern about the Commission’s lack of action, without any evidence the individual was actual a representative of the charity, there is little that we can say the Commission should have done here.
Refusal to cooperate
65. Mr I complained to the Commission that there had been refusal by the charity to answer any questions about the issues he raised, and a failure to comply with a Subject Access Request (SAR). He says it used solicitors to try and bully him into silence. He says the Commission has refused to take any action on this.
66. The Commission’s response of 20 October 2023 advised that regarding the charity’s failure to comply with a SAR, Mr I should contact the Information Commissioner’s Office (the ICO).
67. Regarding other allegations of a failure to answers questions, it maintained its stance as with the other points that these would not come under its role as a regulator. Similar responses were sent on 18 February, 14 March, 8 July and 24 July 2024
68. We agree that the ICO would be the appropriate forum for Mr I to report an organisation’s failure to comply with a SAR. The ICO was set up by the government to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals, and as such would be better placed than the Commission to investigate this matter.
69. However, we wanted to understand whether, if there were indications a charity was failing in its duties and there was a problem with transparency, why this might not be a matter to consider under the Commission ’s regulatory risk framework. And, if so, why the decision was taken to not proceed with regulatory action. This does not appear to have been explained in any of the Commission ’s responses to Mr I, and so we asked for further detail on this.
70. The Commission advised (as it had done on previous points) that part of its consideration is to assess whether the information suggests wider regulatory concerns in how the charity is operating. As part of the assessment process, it checks whether there have been any other concerns raised about the charity.
71. If there is evidence or an indication that a charity is not complying with another regulator or statutory body, this could potentially indicate wider governance concerns if there were repeated failings. However, the Commission would not comment on any failures which fall within another regulator’s remit.
72. The Commission’s position was that based on the available information there is nothing to suggest any such failings by the charity to comply with actions required by the ICO nor any suggestion of wider regulatory issues.
73. We would expect such concerns to be directed to the ICO and find that the Commission was correct to advise Mr I that he should take his concerns there. This was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Principles – being customer focused – as we expect public bodies to ensure customers are clear about their entitlements, about what they can and cannot expect from a public body.
Improper use of charity funds and resources
74. Mr I complains that the Commission has refused to investigate evidence he has provided that the charity is using its money and resources improperly. This includes:
• allowing non-eligible staff and their family members to live in the almshouse properties.
• Renting properties to people who had been adequately housed elsewhere, so that they could then sell their own property • Staff engaging in personal relationships with tenants
75. We could see that the Commission had advised Mr I that it could not look into these concerns, but little explanation appeared to have been given as to why.
76. Mr I had explained that he was demonstrating there is a problem with this charity not only in relation to his father, but also others. We would ordinarily expect the Commission to give a view on this in relation to its regulatory risk framework, but this does not appear to have been covered, and so we approached the Commission for an explanation.
77. The Commission explained that when Mr I made these allegations in July 2024, he did not provide any evidence. It says the new concerns were considered by an experienced manager within the Assessment Team, and they decided it would not be appropriate to intervene based on the information provided as it was hearsay.
78. As already explained in previous sections, the Commission does not act on hearsay, and PHSO would not expect it to. It also reiterated that its engagement with a charity needs to be proportionate.
79. In the letter dated 16 August 2024, it explained to Mr I that it could not act without evidence and explained how he could provide this. We cannot see that Mr I has provided any evidence, other than for him to say he either believes or knows it is happening.
80. The Commission also confirmed it has reviewed records it holds on the charity, and that it has not received any other complaints of this nature about the charity.
81. Without any evidence provided by Mr I to the Commission of these allegations, we would not expect it to act. Therefore, we consider the Commission appeared to act in accordance with our Principles. These say public bodies should get it right – they should balance up the evidence appropriately.
Summary
82. Having reviewed all the relevant evidence, the records indicated the Commission followed relevant policy and guidance on Mr I’s case. We have therefore taken the decision that there is nothing to indicate a need to proceed to the second and final stage of our complaints process.
83. We were sorry to learn of the circumstances which led to Mr I’s approach to our office. We realise that this outcome is not what he was hoping for. We hope he finds this statement helpful, and that we have clearly explained the reasons for our decision.